Heat magazine censured by PCC for disputed story of a kiss

Celebrity magazine Heat has been censured by the Press Complaints Commission over an article that claimed a singer had kissed a girl and therefore cheated on his then girlfriend.

The PCC ruled that the magazine had breached the clause in the editors' code of practice about accuracy in the story headlined "Exclusive: 'Fazer cheated on Tulisa with me'... Fazer told me he didn't have a girlfriend - then we kissed".

The story, trailed on the magazine's cover, concerned a nightclub incident involving Richard Rawson, known as Fazer, who was with the band N-Dubz.

Rawson, while accepting that he had danced with the woman, strongly denied that there had been any kiss or that he had told her that he didn't have a girlfriend.

He said that the magazine should have approached his representative for comment before publication, rather than informing him of the claims only after the edition had gone to print.

The magazine explained that it had not approached Rawson's people for comment because it was confident of its story. To that end, it provided an affidavit signed by the woman plus a witness statement from a freelance journalist who had taken the photographs used to illustrate the story. He confirmed that he had witnessed the alleged kiss.

Though the commission was unable to reconcile the conflicting versions of events it took account of the wording of the editors' code, which states: "The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information."

It noted that the magazine had been unable to provide direct corroborating evidence of the kiss, such as a photograph.

It also took a dim view of the magazine's decision not to contact Rawson's representatives prior to publication, ruling that it represented a failure to take care over the accuracy of the story. So it upheld the complaint.

Charlotte Dewar, head of complaints and pre-publication services, explained the PCC's reasoning:

"Although the code does not impose specific requirement of 'prior notification', seeking comment from the subject of a story before publication may be a necessary step to ensure the accuracy of any resulting coverage.

While the commission was not able to reconcile conflicting claims from witnesses about what had happened at the club, it decided that in the full context - which included the nature of the claims and the prominence with which they were trailed to readers - the magazine's decision not to seek comment from the complainant's representative about the incident before publication breached the terms of clause 1."

Rawson also complained about that pictures of him dancing with the woman breached his privacy.

But the commission noted that the evening on which they had been taken had been a "press night" and that, in such a context, a well-known musician did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That part of the complaint was rejected.

Comment: This ruling reminds us, yet again, about the controversial business of prior notification. The code is silent on that matter, as the PCC properly states.

I can understand why Heat magazine's editors felt confident enough to publish, given an affidavit and a supporting statement.

But I guess the failure to contact the complainant's representatives has a too-good-to-check element about it. Similarly, the thinking might have been that Rawson's people would call in lawyers and prevent publication.

My feeling is that we have to sort out this business of "prior notification" in whatever code emerges in the wake of the Leveson report. An obligation to notify would sort out many post-publication problems.

It could, as with other parts of the current code, be subject to a public interest test. In other words, if editors decided not to contact a person about a story involving them in advance, they would need to show that they had good reasons not to.

I hear Max Mosley whispering in my ear that such a compromise just isn't good enough. But I accept the view, as newspapers argued when he sought to make it a legal requirement before the European court, that a code would be better than a law.

At present, as the Rawson-versus-Heat case illustrates, there is far too much leeway in the current code.